Most Liked Content

When the Rural Air Services was handed over to Air Asia (which was operated by FAX), Air Asia demanded for and was given the whole of the RAS exclusively (including the KK-Sibu sector). MH had to abide by this.

And when they found that they cant operate RAS profitably, they took their spoils and dumped it (in its sorry state) back to MH. Now AK wants to cherry pick again playing on the people as a means of getting what they want.

The basis of the RAS is for the more profitble route to cross subsidise the lesser ones. In the end if this route is given to AK, then it is the people's money that will be used to pay for the other routes.

A recent internal communications says that MASWings got only 50% of the subsidy paid to FAX for RAS. If indeed MASWings got a better deal, I am sure Uncle Tony will be the first person at the PM's door every morning to either cry foul or to have RAS returned to AK, being the clever man that he is.

Well it was Fly Asian Express (D7) that was established to operate those routes. I believe that AirAsia (AK) was forced to take this burden off MAS as the price they had to pay for the govt. to open up domestic routes to AK. However, D7 soon found out that the subsidies paid by the govt. were not adequate and their services deteriorated since they cannot rely on cross subsidies from AK. I believe that MASWings now has a better deal with the govt.

So it was a win-win situation - D7 got rid of their loss maker to focus on international routes. MH got a better deal from the govt. and new aircraft for the service. AK got their access to domestic routes. Even the govt. comes out looking good in this scheme of things!

Is that right? Very different from what I heard and observed. Where did you get the news from?

I remember Uncle Tony was very gung ho to take over those routes and MH was adamant they could still managed. And Air Asia got massive subsidies upfront but of course, you can't make huge profit flying the rural air service.

I'm also not so sure about the better deal now. Was told that MASwing has no freedom of control over pricing of their tickets. It's tightly regulated by the gov. The people of East Malaysia certainly are not getting a good deal. Ever since Air Asia took over, the fares just skyrocketed and it remained high until now. The fares are simply not affordable for many. If the gov is of any good, they should reduce the fares as the rural flights are a necessity. If they can throw out huge subsidies each year for highways in West Malaysia, they should do more for rural flights in East Malaysia. We don't have highways and our roads treacherous. Rivers?..Well, forget it.

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 11 (Bernama) -- Malaysia Airlines (MAS) has denied forcing AirAsia out of the Kota Kinabalu-Sibu route, saying that it is following the rural air service (RAS) agreement.

"The Kota Kinabalu-Sibu route is exclusive to the RAS operator because AirAsia requested for route exclusivity when its subsidiary FAX operated the RAS," the airline said in a statement.

MASwings managing director Mohd Salleh Tabrani said AirAsia demanded exclusive rights to almost all of the air routes within and intra Sabah and Sarawak, including the Kota Kinabalu-Sibu route, during the domestic rationalisation.

"Under the domestic rationalisation exercise in March 2006, Malaysia Airlines was asked to give up the RAS operations and pass them to AirAsia. This included the right to offer services between Kota Kinabalu and Sibu," he said.

"Only AirAsia's subsidiary FAX had the exclusive rights to ply these routes. As such, there is absolutely no truth to AirAsia's allegation that we forced them out of the Kota Kinabalu-Sibu route," Mohd Salleh said.

"We are merely following the RAS agreement that is in place. For AirAsia to fly on the route is a breach of the agreement, the same privileges enjoyed by FAX," he said.

The RAS agreement covers exclusivity of the routes in Sabah and Sarawak whereby the airline operating the routes is given the first right of refusal in the event that the government wants to open up additional routes in Sabah and Sarawak.

"AirAsia was given the choice to operate in 2006, got more subsidy than MASwings for the same scope of air services, quickly surrendered the RAS back to MAS when they realised how unprofitable the routes were and have now decided they want to cherry pick and operate only on profitable routes," Mohd Salleh said.

"This is not acceptable as taxpayers' money is involved. We cross-subsidise profitable routes such as Kota Kinabalu-Sibu with other unprofitable routes. By doing this, we save the taxpayers' money as MASwings' profit and loss is borne by the government," he said.

In the event that changes are made to the RAS agreement, MASwings would need to review the commitment it has given to the government, Mohd Salleh said, adding that the current commitment is an annual subsidy of below 50 percent of what was paid to FAX.

"In the event of the removal of selected routes from the RAS agreement, a higher subsidy may have to be paid to MASwings," he said.

AirAsia, through FAX, took over RAS from MAS in 2006. Just 13 months later, MAS was asked to take back the RAS operations and has since been operating these routes under MASwings.

Initially, RAS in the context of MAS was designated for air services using the Twin Otter aircraft. When the government gave RAS to AirAsia, it was with an expanded scope and covers all "propeller operated services".

The separation was done on Aug 1, 2006. As a result, MAS had to retrench hundreds of long-serving staff in Sabah and Sarawak under a mutual separation scheme.

MAS said that it also handed over seven Fokker 50 and five Twin Otter aircraft to FAX in good flying conditions.

"When MASwings resumed the RAS operations on October 1, 2007, 50 percent of the seven Fokker 50 and six Twin Otter aircraft were not airworthy," Mohd Salleh said.

"As a result, we incurred about RM36 million to restore these aircraft back to operational conditions," he said.

Would be interesting to find out whether our DPM's schedule was designed to accomodate requirements of crews' training programme, or the other way round Can you imagine office of DPM calling up RMAF flight training centre to enquire whether can tumpang (hitch a ride) or not ?!

Ok lah, at least now OTK has got valid justification to be flying on KDSB's jets - doing audit what. He is top gun at Transport Ministry after all, and jets (private or otherwise) is a mode of transport kan ? If boss say want to audit, go lah

BC,

I am just being very careful with my words with the intent of sharing what little i know of the system that is not based on assumptions, and flee's response is indeed gratifying. I am not defending nor justifying any perceived abuse, if you know how much income tax I paid last year, you'd appreciate my concern on where the money I paid to the Gahmen goes to. I look with dismay at how rakyat's money were/are being used. Its just that my personal expression of such concern is misplaced at this aviation enthusiasts' website.

The Minister of Transport cannot declare an audit flight at his whims and fancies as these decisions are the domain of bona fide licensed and qualified pilots. Not by pretenders who claim to be experts in a complicated, regulated and diverse field such as aviation by virtue of soaking knowledge from a computer screen, or by the (mis)fortune of being voted into the position.

It won't come to a point where the TPM's ofice would ask to tumpang. But, the Air Force does have a utilisation chart for their aircraft, and can smartly plan to build in this kind of flights so there can be added value to the whole plot. There are still some fairly smart people even in the worst Gahmen department/ services.

Anyway, its gone way of topic. This thread is about the piece of news about the DPM's Chopper making an unscheduled stop to avoid weather, something that is an airmanship decision. And a wise one at that.

Along the way, opinions based on assumptions about the technical issues related to the Nuri, procurement, abuse, MACC, politics, etc etc came into the picture. Even wishing for harm to befall those on board!!! All unrelated to aviation.

Better to think small and keep to topic. Which is about how good the Pilots' decision were, their assessment of weather, possible degradation of NavAids in stormy weather at the lower altitudes the Helis operate at, the terrain they are flying over, aircraft performance with the deluge of water ingestion, consideration towards the 'precious' cargo in the form of human lives on board irregardless if VVIP or not.

Smart decision on behalf of the tech crew not to divulge everything and cause unnecessary panic in the cabin.

As long as the pilot did everything correct and landed the plane safely, what else do you need to know about?

I am not a pilot and if I know it was caused by the malfunctioning of the air conditioning, I am happy enough with this reasoning. I won't want to know what Airbus page of Airbus procedure they followed which is deemed too much info. for me. Flexing the pilot muscles won't work and people won't give you a reason JUST because of that. As a pilot, I believe you have to observe and maintain the professional manner and responsibility, which including a respect to your peers (other pilots). After all they were the ones who made sure everyone, incl. yourself, were safe and sound.

I hope you get a response from Air Asia, if not, don't be surprised or upset.

USAF C-17A 00-0172 arrived 15.40hrs ex: Townsville (QLD) as 'Reach 410' and departed to Diego Garcia (FJDG) at 18.27hrs as same. Checking thru my notes earlier today and was suprised to note that Perth has recieved33 different visiting C-17 aircraft from when the first one visited way back in 2001. For the record we've had 30 USAF, 2 RAF, and 1 Canadian visit; only 3 USAF C-17s visited thus far have only visited more than once.

Very happy to know that D7 has secured a 5th freedom right in AUH, something that even SQ doesn't for the airline's SIN-JED vv and SIN-KWI vv routes, all via AUH. By having a 5th freedom right, D7 can sell tickets from AUH to any other 3rd point destinations thereonwards and reverse, in the future. Surprised EY doesn't launched a protest at all! I suspect ADAC and the government of the Emirates of Abu Dhabi itself are very determined in ensuring that the airport will not lose out to DXB by all means (AUH has always been in the shadow of DXB, petty much like KUL to SIN in my opinion). Looking forward on what this hub status will contribute to D7 in the future. MAHB might have done a grave mistake by delaying the construction of the permanent LCCT in KUL, with regards to this newly inked collaboration with ADAC.

Just imagine...this is the official wear of the AK cabin crew the moment that step off the plane for their night stop at JED....talk about night-and-day.

LOL Mushrif, I suspect if JED is to be served by D7 from AUH, the AUH-JED vv sector will be a turnaround service for the crew, meaning no night stop in Jeddah whatsoever. AUH will be the crew's base, identical to what SQ is currently doing.

Although the Saudi authorities is quite conservative on the print advertisements, they are actually quite lenient to airline staff (at least in this uniform aspect). To begin with, the female crew of the flag carrier, Saudi Arabian Airlines (SV) don't wear abaya from the moment they were dropped off at the curbside area of the airport onwards.

SV's female cabin crew

Their uniform is like EK's although with pants, long sleeve blouse and of darker colour scheme.

Other airlines' crew are also free to navigate through the airport (JED) without having to wear abaya. 'The World's Best' cabin crew team in JED...

... and also GA's cabin crew in JED

It is interesting to note that GA has a special uniform for all Saudi bound flights (CGK-JED vv, CGK-RUH vv) for the female crew, i.e. a tudung, a long sleeve batik blouse and a pant, as opposed to the short sleeve batik blouse and a skirt for the other routes.

Would be glad if our MW female cabin crew member, Nurasyekin Afifah can highlight on the dresscode for the JED bound crews, including how they dress up during their layovers. I am so sure they have to wear the abaya (maybe not covering the face and minus the handglove) while roaming around the city.

Contrary to popular belief, the A320 and B737NG IS able to operate on a runway of length 1,800m and width of 30m. I've seen it. Maroochydore Airport on the Sunshine Coast in QLD receives countless A320 and B737NG flights from around Australia - as far as Adelaide - EVERYDAY!!! YBMC is semi tropical with a fair amount of wet weather, has VOR & NDB approaches for both ends of the main runway 18/36, NO ILS, and is situated along the coast line with regular crosswinds of 15-20 knots. Did i mention the runway width is only 30m! Furthermore, there is high terrain to the north-west and inland to the west. No parrallel taxiway - turning nodes at both thresholds and a very very very congested ramp at times!!! The airport has no radar - it depends on Visual sightings with aircraft from the Tower, although they have a RADAR feed from Brisbane that gives a leg-up on situational awareness - and it becomes an unmanned aerodrome by night - with some RPT services continuing to operate. A tonne of GA traffic is thrown in for a bit more of a challenge - but a challenge that is nonetheless met with steadfast procedures and preparation by the local authorities.

Now Ipoh in terms of terrain - there's quite a bit of it - but IIRC, it DOES have an ILS - a major plus - albeit for RWY04 only. So why the necessity to upgrade the airport now - perhaps the DCA and MAHB could better spend money in devising workable procedures and dealing with what you have first before spending copious amounts of taxpayer dollars on unnecessary additions to existing infrastructure. Perhaps we could learn a thing or two from how other similar airports cope. Perhaps the state governments should look at expanding only when the airport can handle operations that will generate income to finance it's own expansion - this would be the most cost-effective and efficient way..